no title

Don't rush to judgment

Voting-systems report should be subjected to careful review

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

The overcrowding at polling locations during the 2004 presidential election created a skewed national picture of voting in Ohio. In fact, the state's elections have been well-managed for years by bipartisan county boards.

Since 2004, most counties have successfully integrated new voting technology into their operations. The problems of Cuyahoga County are the exception.

An evaluation of the state's election machines, released by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Friday, found that all voting methods have "critical security failures," making them vulnerable to tampering and unreliability. The research by voting specialists said that the security flaws apply to touch-screen machines and optical scanners, the new generation of equipment mandated and funded by the federal government since the 2000 election.

The report, which was vetted by a bipartisan panel of 12 elections officials from around the state, should be the catalyst for discussions by the Strickland administration and the General Assembly on the accuracy and reliability of Ohio's elections systems.

The stakes for Ohioans are too high for partisan bickering between the Democratic administration and the GOP-led legislature. Leaders from both sides should unite to identify the greatest vulnerabilities and construct long-lasting solutions. And they should take their time. A rush job is the last thing Ohio needs.

It's important to note that the study didn't address the probability of hacking or other corruption. That was left to be determined by state and county elections officials.

Every step of the voting process is subject to bipartisan scrutiny, including the handling of the voting machines and other preparations leading up to Election Day. Elections officials must weigh the potential risks in light of that scrutiny.

Brunner, the first Democratic secretary of state in 16 years, stopped short of decertifying the equipment for the March 4 presidential primary. Decertification at this stage would be a nightmare for the 88 county boards. If there are significant dangers in the election system, Ohio officials must decide what modifications could or should be made in time for the Nov. 4 presidential vote, when the eyes of the nation again will be on the state.

The $1.9 million study, paid for with federal money, involved two teams of experts conducting parallel assessments of the security of three voting systems used in Ohio. The research found that some tampering took a "high level of sophistication" while other fraud could be done rather easily.

"The tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the audit-trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital assistant," Brunner said. The question is, how likely is it that anyone could engage in such tampering undetected or on a large enough scale to sway an outcome? Machinery should be made as secure as possible, but there never has been and never will be a foolproof machine. The integrity of voting systems always has depended primarily on the effectiveness of the processes in place to deny people the opportunity to game the machinery.

Based on the findings, Brunner recommended eliminating machinery that counts ballots at polling locations and moving tabulation of ballots to a centralized location at election offices. The necessity, feasibility and costs of such changes should be discussed.

Her separate recommendations for Cuyahoga County were justified in light of the troubles experienced in Cleveland. She indicated state money could be available to pay for a conversion from touch-screen machines to optical-scanner systems in time for the March primary at an estimated cost of $2 million to $2.5 million.

Brunner was right to order the research, but the unfortunate consequence of the study is that conspiracy theorists will renew their claims that Ohio's elections are inherently untrustworthy. That's simply not the case.